The sad thing is, I'm actually surprised to see it's even 2.7%. Rarely is the NHL mentioned on a typical sportscenter. And since they don't have a contract with the NHL anymore, sportscenter is basically their only show where you would even have a chance of hearing anything NHL-related. Although true NHL fans definitely shouldn't be heading to ESPN for their hockey fix. At least there's always NHL network and NHL center ice (couldn't live without em).

It surprises me that ESPN doesn't try to take on hockey. If they did they would monopolize almost all the big sports coverage. And they would have more to talk about through out the year than just repeating the same stories over and over.

What scares me, honestly, is soccer. ESPN is increasingly covering soccer and its gaining popularity fast in north america. I just feel like hockey deserves its place in North America before soccer does. I would hate to see that sport on ESPN full time while hockey continues to lurk in the shadows.

When it comes down to it, I just dont undertsand why ppl prefer any sport over hockey. dum dums.

Also I remember reading a study ESPN did where they found that hockey is the hardest sport to play, based on speed, skill, physicality and other stuff. Best sport ever. End of story.

ESPN also airs NFL, NBA and MLB games, but NBC owns the TV rights for NHL games. Dedicating too much time to the NHL would be akin to giving free advertising to a competitor's network. Something that ESPN (and the entire Disney Empire at large) probably doesn't want to do.

I do miss the days of ESPN/ABC airing NHL games, as well as NHL2Nite on ESPN2. I'd gladly take the combo of Thorne, Clement (Clement, hands of cement) and Pang over Doc, Olcyzkyckechkyczyk and McToolGuire.

ESPN also airs NFL, NBA and MLB games, but NBC owns the TV rights for NHL games. Dedicating too much time to the NHL would be akin to giving free advertising to a competitor's network. Something that ESPN (and the entire Disney Empire at large) probably doesn't want to do.

I do miss the days of ESPN/ABC airing NHL games, as well as NHL2Nite on ESPN2. I'd gladly take the combo of Thorne, Clement (Clement, hands of cement) and Pang over Doc, Olcyzkyckechkyczyk and McToolGuire.

ESPN is only going to cover sports that are going to bring in viewers. Football is the most widely watched sport in America. Baseball is immensely popular. Basketball goes up and down with popularity, but it still maintains an edge over hockey.

But to really understand why ESPN doesn't give as much coverage to the NHL, you also should consider why Hockey isn't as popular a sport as Football, Baseball or Basketball. IMO, its because they are all fairly easy (and inexpensive) to play, while Hockey is so much more difficult (and expensive) to play.

Think of kids playing a sport on a playground or in a park. To play Football, all they really need is the ball itself, which start at maybe $10. To play catch (precursor to baseball), a ball and a glove will run you $20 on the very cheap end, $50 or so to start getting into the better quality equipment. Basketball only needs the ball, again $10 or so, and a hoop, which are available at almost any playground in the country. Hockey, however, needs so much more. Stick, puck, skates (unless it's on-foot), goal frame, etc, which all cost significantly more than just the one or two things needed for the other sports. Not to mention EVERYONE playing hockey needs at least a stick and skates, whereas only one kid needs to bring a football or basketball so that everyone can play.

So, in a way, you already answered your question with your post here...

Also I remember reading a study ESPN did where they found that hockey is the hardest sport to play, based on speed, skill, physicality and other stuff. Best sport ever. End of story.

Because it's so hard and so expensive to play, fewer people play the sport. Which means fewer people are interested in it. Which means ESPN isn't going to devote much time to it, because Hockey coverage won't bring in as many pairs of eyes as Football, Baseball or Basketball.

On a side note, I'd be willing to bet that John Buccigross and Linda Cohn account for 90% of the 2.7% coverage. They seem to be the only real NHL fans at the SportsCenter anchor desk.

ESPN is only going to cover sports that are going to bring in viewers. Football is the most widely watched sport in America. Baseball is immensely popular. Basketball goes up and down with popularity, but it still maintains an edge over hockey.

But to really understand why ESPN doesn't give as much coverage to the NHL, you also should consider why Hockey isn't as popular a sport as Football, Baseball or Basketball. IMO, its because they are all fairly easy (and inexpensive) to play, while Hockey is so much more difficult (and expensive) to play.

Think of kids playing a sport on a playground or in a park. To play Football, all they really need is the ball itself, which start at maybe $10. To play catch (precursor to baseball), a ball and a glove will run you $20 on the very cheap end, $50 or so to start getting into the better quality equipment. Basketball only needs the ball, again $10 or so, and a hoop, which are available at almost any playground in the country. Hockey, however, needs so much more. Stick, puck, skates (unless it's on-foot), goal frame, etc, which all cost significantly more than just the one or two things needed for the other sports. Not to mention EVERYONE playing hockey needs at least a stick and skates, whereas only one kid needs to bring a football or basketball so that everyone can play.

So, in a way, you already answered your question with your post here...

Because it's so hard and so expensive to play, fewer people play the sport. Which means fewer people are interested in it. Which means ESPN isn't going to devote much time to it, because Hockey coverage won't bring in as many pairs of eyes as Football, Baseball or Basketball.

yeah you're 100% right. I might have been able to think of those points if I wasn't drinking so much and playing hockey this particular evening!

On a side note, I'd be willing to bet that John Buccigross and Linda Cohn account for 90% of the 2.7% coverage. They seem to be the only real NHL fans at the SportsCenter anchor desk.

Agreed.

Personally I'd love to see both Cohn, and Buccigross "defect" to NBC, and be the pre-game/intermission/post-game hosts of NHL games (as entertaining as Milbury can be - I can only tolerate so much of him).

Pah, you think that's bad, Sky Sports News in the UK devotes 55 minutes of every 60 to football (soccer). Into the other 5 minutes must go every other sport - Cricket, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Tennis, Golf, Formula One...all sports that Sky hold the rights too, but they'd rather devote the airtime to the latest transfer news at Northampton Town, or where Wayne and Coleen Rooney are going on holiday this summer.....

"If I can be totally honest, it's not a lot of guys you get impressed by. Actually, it's no one else but him. From the bench, to see what move he makes -- you're like, 'I wish I could do that.' Sometimes you sit on the bench and just think, 'wow,' and you look over to the other bench and they sit there and shake their heads, too. He has great, great skills. I'm probably not going to play with another player who has the kind of skills he has." Mikael Samuelsson on Pavel Datsyuk

Screw ESPN. When they do talk about hockey it's to bash on it. When they used to show games they also had very poor pre and post game coverage. After the Stanley Cup clinching games I remember them cutting out to some other dumb sport the second the cup was lifted by the captain. They simply didn't care about the sport and wanted to get on with the next program. It was a rough road to NBCSN via OLN and "Versus" but I am much happier that we are on our own network with the mainstream NBC name. At least there hockey is the premiere sport and they pay it respect with complete coverage. This is actually one of the things Bettman has done right in my opinion.

The sad fact is, bowling and Women's basketball get higher ratings than the NHL. Why that is, I don't know. But you can't blame ESPN for not wanting to pay to air a league that just doesn't bring in viewers/revenue. With the population shift to the South and the changing racial makeup of the country, I don't really see that changing anytime soon. Soccer is going to continue to grow, the "Extreme Sports" are becoming increasingly popular, and it's squeezing out the NHL.

Their coverage could be zero as far as I'm concerned. Quit watching anything on ESPN beyond baseball, Monday Night Football, & the odd college football game years ago. Never watch their filler shows like Sportscenter, all their talking head shows, 12 hours of NFL pre-game shows, etc. any more & figure I'm better off for it.

ESPN is only going to cover sports that are going to bring in viewers. Football is the most widely watched sport in America. Baseball is immensely popular. Basketball goes up and down with popularity, but it still maintains an edge over hockey.

But to really understand why ESPN doesn't give as much coverage to the NHL, you also should consider why Hockey isn't as popular a sport as Football, Baseball or Basketball. IMO, its because they are all fairly easy (and inexpensive) to play, while Hockey is so much more difficult (and expensive) to play.

Think of kids playing a sport on a playground or in a park. To play Football, all they really need is the ball itself, which start at maybe $10. To play catch (precursor to baseball), a ball and a glove will run you $20 on the very cheap end, $50 or so to start getting into the better quality equipment. Basketball only needs the ball, again $10 or so, and a hoop, which are available at almost any playground in the country. Hockey, however, needs so much more. Stick, puck, skates (unless it's on-foot), goal frame, etc, which all cost significantly more than just the one or two things needed for the other sports. Not to mention EVERYONE playing hockey needs at least a stick and skates, whereas only one kid needs to bring a football or basketball so that everyone can play.

So, in a way, you already answered your question with your post here...

Because it's so hard and so expensive to play, fewer people play the sport. Which means fewer people are interested in it. Which means ESPN isn't going to devote much time to it, because Hockey coverage won't bring in as many pairs of eyes as Football, Baseball or Basketball.

Doesn't hockey have the same ratings as basketball? It's just that basketball has a bigger presence in the big TV markets than hockey does. I'd say basketball is as much of a fringe, regional sport as hockey is. I read somewhere that the NBA is in decline outside of big urban areas. People play it of course, but they don't generally care.

New e-book: The Spanish-American War: A Brief History. Relatively short, introductory read for casual history buffs and people who want to learn more about a forgotten war that changed America. Available at BN.com, Smashwords, Kobo, and Diesel E-Books right now. Same link as above.

Pah, you think that's bad, Sky Sports News in the UK devotes 55 minutes of every 60 to football (soccer). Into the other 5 minutes must go every other sport - Cricket, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Tennis, Golf, Formula One...all sports that Sky hold the rights too, but they'd rather devote the airtime to the latest transfer news at Northampton Town, or where Wayne and Coleen Rooney are going on holiday this summer.....

Gah that sucks. The last time I was in Europe, it was Ireland during the Rugby World Cup. Lots of good craic to be had in the pubs during that trip Add in some hockey, and I'm convinced that's what heaven is like...

Just look at how he hangs his sunglasses from his banana hammock in that last pic. This guyf****** rules. --kipwinger